How does acceptance of a unilateral agreement differ from that of ordinary agreement?

Correct my grammer and spelling. I have been out of school for 28 years. Hepl!?

• What are the four elements of a valid contract? There are four elements needed to create a valid business contract first, an agreement has to be reached on all important conditions of the contract. “The second element is the notion of consideration. Each party agrees to an obligation to give something to each other. Consideration can take the form of money, services rendered, property or individual rights. The third element is that of capacity (or competence): ensuring that parties entering into the contract are lawfully capable of agreeing to contracts (e.g. whether an individual has the authority to represent their organization).” Finally, the legal purpose of the contract must be established. A contract cannot be forced unless the actions agreed upon are legal in the jurisdiction where the contract is made (.Godchild, Harring, and Milosevic , 2005.) Describe the objective theory of contracts. How does that theory apply to this case? legal concept that a binding agreement exists between two (or more) parties if a reasonable person would judge that an offer has been made and accepted. It dispenses with the subjective notion of intention of the parties advocated under the older subjective theory of contract as being too hazy (Business dictionary, 2010.) This theory is relevant to this case (Seattle Man Loses in Battle with Pepsi for Harrier-Jet Prize) because the commercial was a joke and no reasonable, objective person would have taken it seriously, based on the definition of objective theory. Why do you think the court held that there was not a valid agreement here? The court held that that there is no valid agreement here because the commercial was evidently was made to be humorous. Also if we look at one of the four elements of a valid contract, there is no mutual agreement between PepsiCo and John D. R. Leonard. Are advertisements generally considered offers? Why or why not? In most cases, advertisements are not considered offers. In contract doctrine, an offeror must direct his or her offer at an identifiable person. The person doesn't have to be just one person; it can be a group of people. The advertisement must also determine specific terms that will be binding if accepted by the person. Most advertisements that we see, then, are not offers. They are simply invitations to consider buying a product. An example of an advertisement that would be an offer is one that includes a phrase such as "first come first serve" along with a price and place to come accept the offer. How does this case differ from a reward situation, where a unilateral contract is formed upon completion of the requested act? This is because there was no contract. The Item was not even in the catalog, only in the commercial, and only catalogue merchandise can be redeemed under this program. Also, advertisements are not offers. References: Goodchild, A., Harring, C., and Milosevic, Z. (2005). Distributed System Technology Center, Business contracts. Retrieved on AUG 3, 2010 from http://logic.stanford.edu/classes/cs204/readings/goodchild2000.pdf Theory of contracts, Online Business dictionary. Retrieved on Aug 3, 2010 from http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/objective-theory-of-contract.html Unilateral contract, the free dictionary. Retrieved on Aug 4, 2010 From http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Unilateral+contract

• Answer:

  if grammar's your problem Why not try a spell checker?